Anti-realism about truth and facts

[Curious George]

In other words, you cannot provide me with a quote or the post number of the post in which you have done what you claim to have done. Gotcha.


Provide the post number in which I called you a moron, please.


:yes:


:no:

See post #143. Regardless of how we word it, the position is incoherent and self-refuting. And given the fact that the position is untenable and cannot even be endorsed without a performative contradiction, it's no surprise that AmbiguousGuy has completely demurred from making any attempt to defend this view, despite inviting me to create this thread for precisely that reason.

I don't know if you have been reading my interchange with raw thought, but if you are and you happen to know from where he is coming, maybe you can help me understand.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No, I am going to try to do this without slipping into solipsism. But as I am sure you know, solipsism is a concept that only self can be known or exist.

It fits with your "ambiguous" take.

And, unfortunately, suffers from the exact same problems that trivially plague AmbiguousGuy's (implied, not exactly stated) position regarding truth- endorsing solipsism is incoherent. This is what is ironic about raw thought's statements on this thread; for someone who tries to name-drop Wittgenstein in every post he makes, he should be aware of the deeper waters here, namely Wittgenstein's private language argument, which is essentially a much more sophisticated version of the obvious point I've raised. I'd explore it here except that, given its technical nature, it would either require several pages of background information (which I'm not really up for at the moment), or would pass well over many posters heads. And, AmbiguousGuy and any who agree with him have their work cut out for them enough as it is with the obvious objection to their claim- that it is self-refuting- without compounding their problems. Of course, after this many pages of evasion and bluster, I'm not expecting any of them to deal with this problem directly, much less to do so in any acceptable or adequate fashion, so this is more of a "for the record" observation than anything I expect to deal with here in any detail.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I don't know if you have been reading my interchange with raw thought, but if you are and you happen to know from where he is coming, maybe you can help me understand.

I wish I could help; I've found trying to decipher raw thoughts posts to be a rather fruitless endeavor- and from a glance at his last few posts on this thread, they don't appear to be any exception.

 

[Curious George]

I wish I could help; I've found trying to decipher raw thoughts posts to be a rather fruitless endeavor- and from a glance at his last few posts on this thread, they don't appear to be any exception.

Well thanks anyway. I just thought you might be familiar with the argument he put forward in his second to last post, in which he enumerated points. I wanted to understand why information processing machines sans consciousness could not be said to extract "meaning" given two programs collecting data and sending such data back and forth when their data collection is altered by the data each receives from the other. Talking it out with ambiguous a little I think my problem might be in my definitions..

If any thoughts come to mind on the subject, I would be appreciate hearing your input. But, if not c'est la vie.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well thanks anyway. I just thought you might be familiar with the argument he put forward in his second to last post, in which he enumerated points. I wanted to understand why information processing machines sans consciousness could not be said to extract "meaning" given two programs collecting data and sending such data back and forth when their data collection is altered by the data each receives from the other. Talking it out with ambiguous a little I think my problem might be in my definitions..

If any thoughts come to mind on the subject, I would be appreciate hearing your input. But, if not c'est la vie.

Regarding this-

Subjectivity= qualia. Qualia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Are you saying that computers have qualia ( awareness)?
1. There can be no meaning without intersubjectivity .
2. There can be no intersubjectivity without subjectivity.
3. There cannot be subjectivity without qualia.
4. Therefore, there cannot be meaning without qualia.
Since you are claiming that computers can contain meaning, it follows that you must conclude that computers are conscious.

The problem is likely not with your definitions, but his- he's equating several terms which are distinct, despite linking to an article that describes precisely what "qualia" means in the relevant philosophic literature. Qualia are subjective, and involve awareness, but that does not mean that "qualia" is interchangeable with "subjective/subjectivity" or "awareness"- these terms have much different meanings, even if they are nevertheless related/connected. And also, it should be important to note how controversial the existence of qualia is- this is a matter of hot debate in metaphysics and the philosophy of mind, even extending to scientific fields like cognitive neuroscience (as I'd imagine Legion could attest); in other words, it is by no means a given that there are such thing as qualia, or what they are like or what their significance may be. To presuppose any concrete answers to any of these issues is to jump the gun in a rather bad way, and at the very least stands in need of some justification or argument. There are some very notable proponents of views like eliminative physicalism (folks like the Churchlands and Dennett, and even going back to heavy-hitters like Quine and Sellars), and their arguments cannot be easily dismissed or ignored.

In any case, I'm not really sure how any of this is supposed to help the proponent of the view that there is no such thing as truth, or facts, so all of this seems sort of moot, albeit interesting in its own right.

 

[Curious George]

Regarding this-



The problem is likely not with your definitions, but his- he's equating several terms which are distinct, despite linking to an article that describes precisely what "qualia" means in the relevant philosophic literature. Qualia are subjective, and involve awareness, but that does not mean that "qualia" is interchangeable with "subjective/subjectivity" or "awareness"- these terms have much different meanings, even if they are nevertheless related/connected. And also, it should be important to note how controversial the existence of qualia is- this is a matter of hot debate in metaphysics and the philosophy of mind, even extending to scientific fields like cognitive neuroscience (as I'd imagine Legion could attest); in other words, it is by no means a given that there are such thing as qualia, or what they are like or what their significance may be. To presuppose any concrete answers to any of these issues is to jump the gun in a rather bad way, and at the very least stands in need of some justification or argument. There are some very notable proponents of views like eliminative physicalism (folks like the Churchlands and Dennett, and even going back to heavy-hitters like Quine and Sellars), and their arguments cannot be easily dismissed or ignored.

In any case, I'm not really sure how any of this is supposed to help the proponent of the view that there is no such thing as truth, or facts, so all of this seems sort of moot, albeit interesting in its own right.

Thanks again.

and your right, it is not relevant to this thread. I am usually better at not derailing. My apologies, I didn't even realize it was happening.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

In other words, you cannot provide me with a quote or the post number of the post in which you have done what you claim to have done. Gotcha.

#2, #4, #12, #13, etc. Just look for messages posted by AmbiguousGuy.

Now would you please stop bothering me to do your own research?

Provide the post number in which I called you a moron, please.

Huh? You called me a moron? When and where?

See post #143. Regardless of how we word it, the position is incoherent and self-refuting. And given the fact that the position is untenable and cannot even be endorsed without a performative contradiction, it's no surprise that AmbiguousGuy has

What position? What the heck are you talking about?

I've absolutely, positively, objectively, truthfully proven that the following statement is not a contradiction: There is no truth.

So what else do you want me to do? Are you seriously saying that you are unable to follow simple argumentation?

If so, I'm not sure how I can help you. But if you can think of anything specific -- a reading list, perhaps -- please let me know. I'll try to throw something together for you.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

#2, #4, #12, #13, etc. Just look for messages posted by AmbiguousGuy.

Exactly. You have not done what you claim to have done. Only one of these posts is yours, and one of them doesn't even attempt to argue against the OP. Oops.

Huh? You called me a moron? When and where?

You tell me-

Fictitious incivility. Right. So you would argue that calling one's dialogue partner a moron is an example of good old-fashioned civility?

Please provide a post number.

I've absolutely, positively, objectively, truthfully proven that the following statement is not a contradiction: There is no truth.

You continue to make my case for me. And, if you please, provide a post number in which you think you have done this; posts #2, #4, #12, and #13 contain no such argument, certainly not from you.

So what else do you want me to do? Are you seriously saying that you are unable to follow simple argumentation?

If so, I'm not sure how I can help you. But if you can think of anything specific -- a reading list, perhaps -- please let me know. I'll try to throw something together for you.

Nope, not getting sucked into your games again. Post an argument or be ignored (or the post number in which you did make an argument for your case, or responded to any of the objections that have been urged against you- if there was such a post anywhere in this thread, I've missed it... and your unhelpfulness and evasiveness in directing me to such a post should make us suspicious that there in fact is any such post).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Exactly. You have not done what you claim to have done. Only one of these posts is yours, and one of them doesn't even attempt to argue against the OP. Oops.

Yeah. I pulled messages from the parallel thread. But you can still search this thread for messages from AmbiguousGuy.

Please provide a post number.

Since I've never claimed that you called me a moron, I'm afraid I cannot provide a post number in which you called me a moron. Did you call me a moron and I missed it?

You continue to make my case for me.

Sure. And bluster, bluster, bluster in return.

And, if you please, provide a post number in which you think you have done this; posts #2, #4, #12, and #13 contain no such argument, certainly not from you.

All my posts in this thread and many in others. Read them.

Nope, not getting sucked into your games again. Post an argument or be ignored (or the post number in which you did make an argument for your case, or responded to any of the objections that have been urged against you- if there was such a post anywhere in this thread, I've missed it...

Of course you've missed them. Can a creationist see posts which prove that evolution is true? I think not. They are invisible to him.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I see you're no more willing to participate in an honest and genuine discussion than you were before. *edit*

 

[raw_thought]

enaidealukal
Can you give me an example of subjectivity without consciousness being involved?
I understand your objection and perhaps subjectivity and qualia are not interchangeable ( I will even provisionally concede that, as it has no effect on my argument). However, I will stand by my statement that subjectivity requires qualia (consciousness). Perhaps you will say that “qualia” and “consciousness” are not interchangeable. My response is that if there are no qualia there is no consciousness.
I agree with Searle (Searle actually made the claim that Dennett on this issue is not just wrong but also deluded) , Chalmers and Nagel. I honestly believe that Dennett is deluded. To deny the existence of consciousness*, to me, is obviously neurotic. For example, if pain= C fibers firing then there is nothing wrong with torture. If torture, causes me no pain and only makes my C fibers fire, I cannot see any reason to prevent torture. Obviously, Dennett would say that torture is wrong. But that shows that his reasoning contradicts itself and is therefore absurd.
Also, matter cannot be true or false. A rock simply is, it is not true or false. Dennett believes that only matter exists. Therefore, nothing can be true or false. Therefore, everything Dennett says (for him, only sound patterns, or patterns of ink, or even patterns of neurons firing exist.) cannot be true or false. (Obviously I think what Dennett claims is false. What I am saying is that if Dennett is correct, anything he says cannot be true or false). Therefore, everything he says is gibberish. To claim that the statement “ Qualia does not exist” is neither true or false is to speak gibberish.
* And yes, that is what Dennett denies.

 

[raw_thought]

Dennett does not believe in first person narratives, only 2nd and 3rd. One morning he woke up, turned to his wife and asked," It was good for you. Was it good for me?"
That is how ridiculous I think Dennett's position is!

 

[raw_thought]

"I wish I could help; I've found trying to decipher raw thoughts posts to be a rather fruitless endeavor- and from a glance at his last few posts on this thread, they don't appear to be any exception. "
enaidealukal
Luckily, most people do not suffer from your deficiencies and have no problem understanding my posts. I realize that you have no clue what I was talking about in the posts just above this one,because you are a very literal thinker and cannot think metaphorically. You will probably, even claim that metaphorical thinking is somehow inferior. Actually, thought experiments*,etc are the foundation of progress. Simply, quoting is not understanding.
It is funny how you NEVER offer any argument. Only ad hominums and appeals to authority.
* Einstein used thought experiments to discover the principles of relativity.

 

[raw_thought]

Ahh, I see what you are saying.

I disagree with either one, two, or there depending on how you define the terms. But I do not deny subjectivity, which is what I thought you were saying. I am either suggesting meaning does not need intersubjective interaction, subjectivity does not require qualia, or intersubjective interaction does not require subjectivity. And it's not gibberish. But please define the terms.

Good post! You obviously understand me. And it is fair to say that you disagree.
However, to claim (as others have done) that my posts are indecipherable reveals that person's incompetence or that they simply love indulging in ad hominums.

 

[raw_thought]

Physical objects (in this case signifiers Signifier - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary) cannot be true or false. A rock for example, simply exists; it is not true or false. Without qualia, any signifiers used are not true or false. Therefore, if one says that consciousness is not required for meaning if one is consistent he must admit that what he claims is gibberish ( meaningless)

I will help you understand Enaidealukal ( you said that You could not decipher that post).
The physical word ( the sound pattern created by speaking the word and/or the ink pattern created when writing the word) cannot be true or false. Only the concept they refer to can be true or false. Therefore, any physical pattern in the computer cannat be said to be meaningful as a proposition that is not true or false is meaningless.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The physical word ( the sound pattern created by speaking the word and/or the ink pattern created when writing the word) cannot be true or false. Only the concept they refer to can be true or false.

Yeah, that seems to be the crux of it. I think logicians can sometimes forget that they are only manipulating symbols. It is obvious that A =/= -A. We can see the symbols 'A' and '-A' right there in front of us. I am also willing to declare that A =/= B. In the realm of symbols only A can equal A.

Even then, if we went down to the subatomic pixel level, we might find that they are not exact mirrors of each other, but that's surely a quibble. For our purposes we can say that A = A.

But once A tries to stand for something else, some referent out there, then the fog starts to rise around us.

Unless we are dualists, I mean. (I think that's the first time I've ever used the word 'dualist' in my life. It gave me a funny feeling when I did it.)

 

[Curious George]

Good post! You obviously understand me. And it is fair to say that you disagree.
However, to claim (as others have done) that my posts are indecipherable reveals that person's incompetence or that they simply love indulging in ad hominums.

I don't want to derail enaidealukal's thread anymore, perhaps we can start another.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't want to derail enaidealukal's thread anymore, perhaps we can start another.

For what it might be worth to you, I found myself pretty well lost trying to follow the dialogue between you and raw_thought. That doesn't mean that either one of you was confused or anything. I think it just means that when we try to dialogue at this level of abstraction, that we have to be ready to define our terms in our own words. Especially since you guys seem to be using some technical words from academic philosophy.

Anyway, each person has his own wordworld. Dialogue and debate is about learning the other guy's words, as much as anything.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

enaidealukal
Can you give me an example of subjectivity without consciousness being involved?
I understand your objection and perhaps subjectivity and qualia are not interchangeable ( I will even provisionally concede that, as it has no effect on my argument). However, I will stand by my statement that subjectivity requires qualia (consciousness). Perhaps you will say that “qualia” and “consciousness” are not interchangeable. My response is that if there are no qualia there is no consciousness.

What does any of this have to do with the present topic? That is my primary objection to it here; that it has nothing to do with the question of whether there are truths.

I honestly believe that Dennett is deluded. To deny the existence of consciousness*, to me, is obviously neurotic...

Dennett does not believe in first person narratives, only 2nd and 3rd. One morning he woke up, turned to his wife and asked," It was good for you. Was it good for me?"
That is how ridiculous I think Dennett's position is!

This is a pretty strong indication you're not understanding his position then; dismissing a legitimate academic view as "deluded" and "neurotic" simply isn't credible. I don't agree with Searle or Nagel, but neither I nor Dennett or anyone else would call them deluded.

Also, matter cannot be true or false. A rock simply is, it is not true or false.

Rocks aren't truth-bearers; linguistic items are, i.e. propositions. Propositions can be utterances, they can be ink marks on a piece of paper, they can be particular neural firings in the brain. Nothing about physicalism precludes the existence of semantic meaning or of truth.

Luckily, most people do not suffer from your deficiencies and have no problem understanding my posts. I realize that you have no clue what I was talking about in the posts just above this one,because you are a very literal thinker and cannot think metaphorically. You will probably, even claim that metaphorical thinking is somehow inferior. Actually, thought experiments*,etc are the foundation of progress. Simply, quoting is not understanding.

The problem isn't exactly that I don't understand you per se, it's that I rarely see the point of your posts, or what bearing they may have on whatever the present topic happens to be.

It is funny how you NEVER offer any argument. Only ad hominums and appeals to authority.

I've already directed you to the post in which I lay out my objection to position under discussion; #143 I believe it was. You can continue to complain about these grievous ad-hominems you're supposedly a victim of, or you can contribute something to the discussion of whether there is such a thing as truth.

 

[Willamena]

enaidealukal
Can you give me an example of subjectivity without consciousness being involved?
I understand your objection and perhaps subjectivity and qualia are not interchangeable ( I will even provisionally concede that, as it has no effect on my argument). However, I will stand by my statement that subjectivity requires qualia (consciousness). Perhaps you will say that “qualia” and “consciousness” are not interchangeable. My response is that if there are no qualia there is no consciousness.

Why do we need the term "qualia," when the term "thought" has sufficed for so long?